Talk:satispaßion
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Stephen G. Brown in topic RFD discussion: September 2017
The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process (permalink).
It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.
Isn’t this simply a typographic variation? — (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 06:31, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, deleted. —Stephen (Talk) 10:23, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- Keep I think we have many entries to delete if we delete typographic variations. Consider all the other ligatures: Æ, æ, Œ, œ, and ſ for s. DCDuring (talk) 23:55, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- See, for example, the 1,399 members of Category:English terms spelled with Æ. DCDuring (talk) 23:59, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- I don't believe that this ß glyph was ever used in English orthography. In the box at the right, the long s + s ligature (ſs) as used in English would be either No. 1 or No. 2, but not 3 or 4.
- English ligatures used to be standard in typesetting English texts, and the common set of ligatures for most fonts were fi, fl, ff, ffi, ffl, ct, st, ſi, ſl, ſſ, ſs, ſt. In some fonts, such as Caslon or Garamond, there were additional ligatures. However, as shown in the second box at the right, English ligatures such as ſs, ſt, ff, fi, fl, and so on, are considered stylistic, and they are a design feature of the chosen font. They had nothing to do with spelling and everything to do with font design. They are not entered by special keystrokes, but simply by selecting certain fonts.
- These ligatures are not on the same level as the æ ligature. The æ and œ ligatures are independent of the font, and are more like a question of spelling. One can always use ae and oe, but if the font has æ and œ available, these may be preferable even in these modern times. In French, œ is the norm (œuf); in Swedish æ is standard.
- The other ligatures, such as fi, fl, ct, st, ſi, ſl, ſſ, ſs, ſt, are just like ſ, the long s itself: they are not like æ, they are merely typographic variations. —Stephen (Talk) 22:03, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- I think I have come across an old work (16th or 17th century) where ß was used instead of ss, but I can't for the life of me remember. Anyway, it's probably quite rare. — SGconlaw (talk) 06:59, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, actually there is an example in satispassion itself. — SGconlaw (talk) 07:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- Deleted by Stephen on 9 September 2017. — SGconlaw (talk) 06:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Sgconlaw, the example in satispassion itself is this. If you look at it, it is not the ß, it is No. 2 from the image above containing four numbered examples. The ß is No. 4 and it was never used in typesetting English. —Stephen (Talk) 06:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- Wow, it's hard to tell the difference, particularly when the font is italic and the two examples aren't side by side for comparison. In that case, the quotation should be updated to indicate ſs instead of ß. — SGconlaw (talk) 09:10, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- Yes. And there are other ligatures on the page, including ſt, ſh, ſſ, ff, fl, fi, and ct. There is also a nonitalicized ſs for comparison (in the word profuſneſs). —Stephen (Talk) 10:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- Wow, it's hard to tell the difference, particularly when the font is italic and the two examples aren't side by side for comparison. In that case, the quotation should be updated to indicate ſs instead of ß. — SGconlaw (talk) 09:10, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Sgconlaw, the example in satispassion itself is this. If you look at it, it is not the ß, it is No. 2 from the image above containing four numbered examples. The ß is No. 4 and it was never used in typesetting English. —Stephen (Talk) 06:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
